Grand Central Abandoning Customers

[Kite159]

CrossCountry also manages the twitter feed.

Unsure if they also delete disruption posts after it has ended but if so it's obviously not a GC policy to cover their disruption up.

I think the reason why they delete the posts the day afterwards is to 'avoid confusion' if someone sees the XX:YY service is cancelled without seeing that it was cancelled the day before (with that service running as normal on the day). Which in a way does make sense considering how some rail customers common sense does go out of the window.

 

[SuspectUsual]

CrossCountry also manages the twitter feed.

Unsure if they also delete disruption posts after it has ended but if so it's obviously not a GC policy to cover their disruption up.

XC neither delete posts that aren’t current day nor disable replies so it seems to be an instruction from GC

 

[harz99]

As you know there is no such thing as a "sold out" train for domestic UK travel. Grand Central even have their own ticket issuing equipment capable of issuing as many walk up tickets as needed. They (or any passenger) could also do this via the ticket office or Great Northern machines and so GC have unequivocally failed to meet their legal obligations by not doing this.

At Northallerton?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2024 ==

In which case they should be sorting out accommodation as well as travel for the next day, shouldn't they?

"they" being whom exactly?

 

[londonbridge]

What if someone took a stance by refusing to leave the train at Northallerton until GC had presented them with arrangements to continue their journey?

 

[Mainline421]

At Northallerton?

The guard's machine can do it. I accept that paying for the tickets may be complicated to arrange, but with many methods available it's certainly possible.

"they" being whom exactly?

Any TOC as per NRCoT.

 

[SuspectUsual]

"they" being whom exactly?

It should be a condition of their access agreement that there is adequate customer service provision, especially at times of disruption and even more so at a list of defined major stations. If the applicant chooses not to provide that resource themselves - either at any stations or just not at the less important ones - they should demonstrate the subcontracting arrangement they intend using prior to being granted their access agreement

 

[AlterEgo]

What if someone took a stance by refusing to leave the train at Northallerton until GC had presented them with arrangements to continue their journey?

That’s how things work in less subservient cultures. It would focus a few minds.

 

[harz99]

The guard's machine can do it. I accept that paying for the tickets may be complicated to arrange, but with many methods available it's certainly possible.

Any TOC as per NRCoT.

So the traincrew are attempting to recover a problem on the train, which is eventually declared a failure, all the while sitting blocking the Up line, they then have to detrain the passengers, and I assume move the train clear back into the Sidings as it eventually departed ECS from Northallerton to Doncaster.

And what, the guard then returns to the platform and sells tickets for a non existent later London train?

 

[geoffk]

The enormous success of Ryanair et al show this is what customers actually want though...

But a train isn't a plane. Anyone betting on GBR having the power to sort this kind of thing out?

 

[Travelmonkey]

What if someone took a stance by refusing to leave the train at Northallerton until GC had presented them with arrangements to continue their journey?

BTP would probably be called, although slightly unrelated it's kind of a issue for those who have assist, especially if pawned off on other operators or services that causes failure down the line.

 

[yorkie]

None of the East Coast long distance operators behave consistently well when disruptive incidents occur, sadly, and GC is probably the worst in this area.

If there is a later GC train that day, but it would incur a delay of over 60 minutes at the passengers destination to wait for it, then GC should arrange an alternative, at no additional cost to passengers. If GC fail or refuse to do so, a customer has the right to purchase a ticket for such an alternative (if they are able to do so) and GC are obliged to refund the customer the cost of the more expensive ticket. GC cannot simply refund the cheapest ticket as that is not acceptable.

If there is no later GC train that day, or if the customer would otherwise be stranded (e.g. they may be relying on a subsequent connection, which a later train would miss) then the customer can rely on Condition 28.2 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel; this obliges any operator in a position to help, to do so. This includes LNER, even if LNER don't want to. If LNER have a problem with this, they need to take it up with GC using whatever means at their disposal. Customers have to be conveyed and cannot becone victims of any disagreements between the relevant TOCs.

As for GC's behaviour on Twitter, it is disgraceful and has been rightly called out.

Someone sent me GC's policy regarding disruptive incidents, which sadly GC do not consistently adhere to:

https://www.grandcentralrail.com/sites/default/files/files/timetables/PIDD%20Delivery%20Plan.pdf

ALTERNATIVE TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS

Grand Central recognises that it isn’t always possible for
passengers to complete their journey as intended, when
an incident disrupts all or part of our routes. We have
a range of arrangements than can be employed during
service disruption, in order to ensure passengers reach their
intended destinations.

Ticketing & Ticket Acceptance
Once CSL2 has been declared the Control team will liaise
with other operators to agree for Grand Central passengers to
be conveyed on alternative routes, in line with
pre-arranged ticket acceptance policies. Subject to capacity
this arrangement will be reciprocated; during disruption
all TOCs will co-operate in moving passengers to their
destinations.

Ticket acceptance will be advised via internal and external
messaging systems, advising both staff and stations, within
20 minutes of CSL2 being declared. Passenger information,
on websites and social media will also be updated once
ticket acceptance has been agreed.

In the event that passengers, who have not yet purchased a
ticket, are directed via an alternative route, which was more
than expensive than their original, then the cheapest fare will
either be accepted or retailed.

Passengers are permitted to make a return journey on the
same route as their outward journey after the disruption has
cleared – they will not be required to purchase a new ticket,
upgrade their ticket, or pay an excess fare. Customers must
travel with their booked TOC or train service, unless they are
travelling off their normal route.

Following a major incident, ticket restrictions may be relaxed
for a longer period. A specific message will be distributed
should this be the case, and this would normally be a
decision led by the Grand Central Senior Management Team
and communicated via websites and socialmedia

Note the use of wording such as "ensure passengers reach their intended destinations." and "they will not be required to purchase a new ticket, upgrade their ticket, or pay an excess fare"; this all sounds fine in theory, but in practice they are not infrequently found to behave differently.

GC really do not like it when anyone informs GC passengers of their contractual entitlements, and therefore GC has taken the decision to prevent anyone replying to their tweets. However they cannot stop re-tweets.

 

[800001]

None of the East Coast long distance operators behave consistently well when disruptive incidents occur, sadly, and GC is probably the worst in this area.

If there is a later GC train that day, but it would incur a delay of over 60 minutes at the passengers destination to wait for it, then GC should arrange an alternative, at no additional cost to passengers. If GC fail or refuse to do so, a customer has the right to purchase a ticket for such an alternative (if they are able to do so) and GC are obliged to refund the customer the cost of the more expensive ticket. GC cannot simply refund the cheapest ticket as that is not acceptable.

If there is no later GC train that day, or if the customer would otherwise be stranded (e.g. they may be relying on a subsequent connection, which a later train would miss) then the customer can rely on Condition 28.2 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel; this obliges any operator in a position to help, to do so. This includes LNER, even if LNER don't want to. If LNER have a problem with this, they need to take it up with GC using whatever means at their disposal. Customers have to be conveyed and cannot becone victims of any disagreements between the relevant TOCs.

As for GC's behaviour on Twitter, it is disgraceful and has been rightly called out.

Someone sent me GC's policy regarding disruptive incidents, which sadly GC do not consistently adhere to:

https://www.grandcentralrail.com/sites/default/files/files/timetables/PIDD%20Delivery%20Plan.pdf

Note the use of wording such as "ensure passengers reach their intended destinations." and "they will not be required to purchase a new ticket, upgrade their ticket, or pay an excess fare"; this all sounds fine in theory, but in practice they are not infrequently found to behave differently.

GC really do not like it when anyone informs GC passengers of their contractual entitlements, and therefore GC has taken the decision to prevent anyone replying to their tweets. However they cannot stop re-tweets.

I wonder what the new Transport Secretary would think if she was tagged into the GC tweet! Would her thoughts on Open Access change!

 

[harz99]

None of the East Coast long distance operators behave consistently well when disruptive incidents occur, sadly, and GC is probably the worst in this area.

If there is a later GC train that day, but it would incur a delay of over 60 minutes at the passengers destination to wait for it, then GC should arrange an alternative, at no additional cost to passengers. If GC fail or refuse to do so, a customer has the right to purchase a ticket for such an alternative (if they are able to do so) and GC are obliged to refund the customer the cost of the more expensive ticket. GC cannot simply refund the cheapest ticket as that is not acceptable.

If there is no later GC train that day, or if the customer would otherwise be stranded (e.g. they may be relying on a subsequent connection, which a later train would miss) then the customer can rely on Condition 28.2 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel; this obliges any operator in a position to help, to do so. This includes LNER, even if LNER don't want to. If LNER have a problem with this, they need to take it up with GC using whatever means at their disposal. Customers have to be conveyed and cannot becone victims of any disagreements between the relevant TOCs.

As for GC's behaviour on Twitter, it is disgraceful and has been rightly called out.

Someone sent me GC's policy regarding disruptive incidents, which sadly GC do not consistently adhere to:

https://www.grandcentralrail.com/sites/default/files/files/timetables/PIDD%20Delivery%20Plan.pdf

Note the use of wording such as "ensure passengers reach their intended destinations." and "they will not be required to purchase a new ticket, upgrade their ticket, or pay an excess fare"; this all sounds fine in theory, but in practice they are not infrequently found to behave differently.

GC really do not like it when anyone informs GC passengers of their contractual entitlements, and therefore GC has taken the decision to prevent anyone replying to their tweets. However they cannot stop re-tweets.

We should also note the words "subject to capacity", which with the vastly reduced and diverted ECML service today, LNER would almost certainly have used to refuse acceptance of GC tickets, as they have done in the past. Academic at Northallerton today as there were no further LNER services scheduled anyway.

 

[yorkie]

We should also note the words "subject to capacity", which with the vastly reduced and diverted ECML service today, LNER would almost certainly have used to refuse acceptance of GC tickets, as they have done in the past. Academic at Northallerton today as there were no further LNER services scheduled anyway.

None of this negates what I said above.

If a passenger would otherwise be stranded, they should be conveyed, if it is at all possible to do so. The only way an operator could refuse is if it is physically impossible for a customer to board, i.e. an operator couldn't agree to convey such a passenger but only if they paid a fare to avoid being stranded.

If a passenger is able to get a later GC train, but could avoid a lengthy delay by taking an earlier LNER and if LNER are refusing to accept GC tickets, but a passenger is able to obtain such a ticket, then GC would be liable to refund the more expensive ticket.

If another operator is not in any position to convey a passenger under any circumstances, then GC would either have to pay for alternative road transport or would have to reimburse the cost of a passengers' hotel or taxi.

In any case, a passenger cannot be simply stranded and any carrier in a position to do so, must do so (and must not charge the passenger to avoid them being stranded).

 

[AdamWW]

At Northallerton?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2024 ==


"they" being whom exactly?

Er the hypothetical manager mentioned in the post I was replying to.

 

[800001]

We should also note the words "subject to capacity", which with the vastly reduced and diverted ECML service today, LNER would almost certainly have used to refuse acceptance of GC tickets, as they have done in the past. Academic at Northallerton today as there were no further LNER services scheduled anyway.

A long time later but 1E24 called at Northallerton at 1913, that would have connected with 1E27 at York.

So there was LNER service calling there, but at times totally unacceptable to any GC customers dumped there off the faulty train.

 

[IanXC]

In the early 2010s, most operators had contracts with the likes of First Rail Support, who would provide both contingency staff and road replacement vehicles in events such as these described. I've witnessed first hand how quickly and effectively these operations can be put into action and how good the system was at dealing with the unexpected. It's to rails detriment that the current response seems to be "tough, deal with it yourself", though as would appear, it's not just reputationally damaging, it's also breach of contract.

TOCs continue to have these arrangements and contracts. The issue is that the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR) and the increased demand for HGV drivers means that there simply aren't the number of coaches available at short notice compared to the position a few years ago. Too many operators have decided it is no longer viable to have capacity for Rail Replacement work, and thus the Rail Replacement providers really struggle to source vehicles when needed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In which case they should be sorting out accommodation as well as travel for the next day, shouldn't they?

The service was rather thin today due I think to engineering works, but there absolutely were connectional journeys from Northallerton to Kings X today after that train terminated there. A Super Off Peak Single each would have done it, albeit probably in relative discomfort.

But if no feasible service was available, they should have been providing accommodation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2024 ==

We should also note the words "subject to capacity", which with the vastly reduced and diverted ECML service today, LNER would almost certainly have used to refuse acceptance of GC tickets, as they have done in the past. Academic at Northallerton today as there were no further LNER services scheduled anyway.

Then GC could have bought them a Super Off Peak Single each, at which point LNER would have no right to refuse unless they physically couldn't board.

There were later connectional journeys via York. Not just 1E24. Multiple TPE services, roughly one each hour.

 

[harz99]

A long time later but 1E24 called at Northallerton at 1913, that would have connected with 1E27 at York.

So there was LNER service calling there, but at times totally unacceptable to any GC customers dumped there off the faulty train.

Well yes, and another 90 minutes or so to wait at York, so as you say totally unacceptable for the GC passengers. I really wouldn't have wanted to be on the failed train because even abandoning the journey and returning home wouldn't have been easy.

 

[robbeech]

This is the railway in 2024. We need to step back and look at the reality here.
It’s all well and good (and absolutely necessary here as the original question relates to where passengers stand legally) dwelling on the contractual obligations, the rules, the regulation, the law but unfortunately as I say, this is the railway in 2024 and I’m incredibly disheartened to say none of that matters.

We are in a position where it makes not a blind bit of difference what any of these documents we so frequently refer to state, the railway dipped its toe in the water years ago to see if they could get away with breaking the law. It’s a resounding success almost everytime so they’re encouraged to continue doing so.
Every single regulatory body (of which there seem to be so many, none of which seem to be responsible for anything at all) is little short of a con.

This action by GC goes against a whole heap of regulations and absolutely nothing will be done about it. Its happened before with them, nothing was done. The best an individual can hope for is a refund on their original cheap as chips ticket. They will have to pay the full undiscounted anytime fare to continue. I suspect GC may even get more from the ORCATS share of a £150 anytime single than they would from a £14 advance so it could be a tidy earner for them, better still if they refuse a refund initially and blame the automated system.

Once again, this IS the railway of 2024.

You can decide to trust the railway to follow its legal obligations and get you to your destination where it reasonably can or you can wake up and accept that it has no real world obligation to do anything the regulations it is bound by says it must do.

Anyone travelling by train in 2024 who does not have the ability to fend for themselves in terms of buying another expensive ticket, paying for a very expensive taxi, paying for a hotel, paying to hire a car etc is taking a risk. A risk they should never have to take. That is a large number of people, and understandably, these things are expensive at a time when money is tight for the majority of people who have no choice.

So I’m completely unsurprised to see things like this happening more and more. The level of service is going down hill, the level of competence is going down hill, the level of regulation is essentially nil.

It’s only a matter of time before the railway lets someone down against its legal obligations and that person ends up hurt or worse as a result for this IS the railway in 2024.

 

[sheff1]

At Northallerton?

The ticket office should be open at 1400 on Sunday.

 

[londonbridge]

BTP would probably be called, although slightly unrelated it's kind of an issue for those who have assist, especially if pawned off on other operators or services that causes failure down the line.

And the passenger then points out that it’s GC who are breaking the law by refusing to convey them or arranging for another TOC to do so, nice publicity for GC if BTP then arrest the passenger for exercising their legal right to onward carriage.

 

[800001]

Well yes, and another 90 minutes or so to wait at York, so as you say totally unacceptable for the GC passengers. I really wouldn't have wanted to be on the failed train because even abandoning the journey and returning home wouldn't have been easy.

As a customer I would have boarded the next TPE to York and then the next available service to Kings Cross.

No guard would get any money out of me if they tried.

 

[soil]

In practice, you'll have to fork out for a new ticket and then claim the cost back from Grand Central later.

Most won't realise this, and will just end up paying the difference for their travel after refunding the original ticket.

The moment the original ticket is refunded, though, you lose the rights you hold to get transported to your destination which is why they are so keen for you to do it.

You don't lose your contractual rights simply because you got your money back.

Refunding the ticket will obviously mean it can't be used on LNER services, but if you refund your ticket as a result of GC cancelling the train, have to buy a new LNER ticket, then you still have a cast-iron claim for damages against Grand Central to the difference of the value of your LNER ticket minus what you got refunded from GC.

 

[Travelmonkey]

Certainly if I was on that journey I'd be jumping on the TPE to York and seeing what I can do from there, Kind of a shame XC don't reroutinely call at Northallerton otherwise ticket acceptance to York/Wakefield for a connecting GC service would be a bare minimum, although pushing from a failed 180 to a 221 probably not the most pleasant of journeys,

 

[Bletchleyite]

As a customer I would have boarded the next TPE to York and then the next available service to Kings Cross.

No guard would get any money out of me if they tried.

Not sure I'd try that these days due to the risk of prosecution. I'd be more inclined to buy a Super Off Peak Single and then seek to get it back from GC, via legal action (small claims track) if they didn't willingly cough up.

Actually, what I'd do is not use GC. They are an utter shambles of a TOC run by an utter shambles of a group and are never, ever going to get any of my money, aside from where I can't avoid it due to ORCATS. And they have always been awful, from rotting HSTs to rotting 180s to rotting Voyagers, and with customer services to match. Cheap and nasty. I'd rather go by National Express.

 

[Travelmonkey]

And the passenger then points out that it’s GC who are breaking the law by refusing to convey them or arranging for another TOC to do so, nice publicity for GC if BTP then arrest the passenger for exercising their legal right to onward carriage.

Depends how disruptive they are although I'm sure BTP/local force have better things to deal with than a travel dispute, it all depends how big a ego both train staff & passenger displays. Would make for a interesting case if they tried to spin it as a "disruptive passenger(s)" especially if someone with a disability is involved. That means other safeguarding risks.

 

[800001]

The annoying thing about the matter is, I believe the train went ECS to Doncaster to form the later service starting back at York.

What was the train fault? And could the train of continued to York with the passengers on?

On the ECS move it only lost 2 minutes between Northallerton and York.

 

[Travelmonkey]

The annoying thing about the matter is, I believe the train went ECS to Doncaster to form the later service starting back at York.

What was the train fault? And could the train of continued to York with the passengers on?

On the ECS move it only lost 2 minutes between Northallerton and York.

I'm purely guessing here but probably something to do with the 3901 cupboard,

 

[357]

AFAIK there is no GC management at King's Cross, the train crews dealing with whatever needs sorting under instruction from the GC control

GC have station staff at Kings Cross.